Is this their plan?
(thehill.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (12)
sorted by:
Can someone please summarize so I don't have to give them a click?
Here ya go fren. AI Generated summary:
Title: Congress does not have to accept Trump's electoral votes
The article argues that Congress has the constitutional authority to block Donald Trump from taking office due to his alleged engagement in insurrection, as outlined in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This section disqualifies anyone who has previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and later engages in insurrection or rebellion. The authors cite Trump's second impeachment trial and a Colorado court ruling affirming that he engaged in insurrection as evidence supporting this claim. Additionally, they highlight the findings of the House Select Committee on the January 6th Capitol attack, which included testimonies from numerous witnesses, many of whom were Republicans.
The article contends that despite a Supreme Court ruling suggesting that federal legislation is needed to enforce Section 3, Congress retains the unique power to reject electoral votes based on constitutional grounds. The authors argue that this rejection does not require Supreme Court approval, as it is a non-reviewable political question. They reference the Electoral Count Act, which outlines the process for resolving disputes regarding Electoral College votes, indicating that a vote for a disqualified candidate is not regularly given.
The authors urge Democrats to take a stand against counting Electoral College votes for Trump unless his disqualification is removed, emphasizing that this is necessary to uphold their oath to defend the Constitution.
Thank you for that. So I guess the article makes no mention of the fact that Trump was never charged with insurrection.
Of course not. They simply disregard reality if it doesn't serve their agenda.
Trump never engaged in insurrection. But they did.